Cold Weather in Denver: Climate Change and Arctic Oscillation (8)

I’ve been living with this cold weather in Colorado this week. If you look around at the Wunderground personal weather station sites, we’ve seen a lot of about -10 F at nights. It’s been causing a lot of grief for homeless people, animals and pipes. There have been a few record lows set. The whole Arctic air mass is starting to move east, which means it will get a lot more press. According to Jeff Master’s blog 80% of the country will be below average.

I thought I had finished my series of blogs on the Arctic Oscillation a couple of weeks ago, but this cold air out break takes me back. It that series I wrote about cold air in the Arctic that is isolated because of barriers caused by streams of rapidly moving air that flows around polar latitudes. I described wobbles in the streams that caused cold air to move south and warm air to move north. Here is one of the figures that I used.

Figure 1: This figure is from the point of view of someone looking down from above at the North Pole (NP). This represents a weak, wavy, wobbly vortex displaced from the pole. The vortex encloses cold air, represented as blue. The line surrounding the cold air is the jet stream or the edge of the vortex. (definition of vortex)

Figure 1 shows an idealized schematic of the North Pole as viewed from above. This is the weak vortex case, when there is a large wobble. In this case, the point X is cold and the point Y is warm. In a case of a stronger, more circular vortex, then the case would be reversed, with point X warm and point Y cold.

Here is a figure from the European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), that I have marked up a bit. The colors are the temperatures at the 850 hecto-Pascal surface, which is about 1.5 kilometers above the surface. The 850 hecto-Pascal temperatures are a good indicator of where it is hot and cold at the surface.

Figure 2: This figure is from the point of view of someone looking down from above at the North Pole (NP). The contour lines on the figure are the height of the 500 hecto-Pascal surface, which is between 5 and 6 kilometers above the surface of the Earth. The colors are the temperatures at the 850 hecto-Pascal surface, which is about 1.5 kilometers above the surface. The 850 hecto-Pascal temperatures are a good indicator of where it is hot and cold at the surface. Figure from the European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF)

I drew a blue arrow showing that the cold air at the pole has wobbled off of the pole and it is pushed towards Colorado. To the west there is warm air, red arrow, pushing up towards Alaska. So while it has been cold in Colorado, it has been quite warm in much of Alaska. Though a less prominent signal, there has also been warm air moving up the East Coast of the U.S. The Alaska – Colorado contrast is a nice real-world example of what I showed in Figure 1. For completeness with my example, the big, black dashed line is the jet stream of air flowing around the pole.

There were several points in my series on the Arctic Oscillation. The first important point is that even in a world that is getting warmer, the polar latitudes become isolated as the Sun goes down for the winter and jet stream intensifies. In this isolation it gets cold, because there is no heating from the Sun and the polar latitudes have a barrier between themselves and the warmer lower latitudes. The second important point is this wobble, the pushing of air off of the pole in some direction. In this case the coldest air is over Greenland, Canada and the U.S. If there is sufficient wobble to push the air far to the south or if it gets pushed to some place it did not get pushed before, then it is even likely to have record cold. These points are all work together and are not correctly viewed as independent events. (I was recently annoyed by the parenthetical dismissal of global warming in this otherwise nice prediction of early strong lake effect snow in Michigan. The statement was essentially pockets of cold Arctic air should not exist.)

I will finish with the Arctic Oscillation. The Arctic Oscillation Index from the Climate Prediction Center is shown in Figure 3. The discussion in my Arctic Oscillation series focused on the positive and negative phases of the Arctic Oscillation Index. Much of the attention was on the eastern U.S. The negative phase was when it is likely to be very cold in the eastern U.S.

In this measure of the Arctic Oscillation Index, the most recent times have been weakly positive, tending towards negative. (Perhaps suggesting movement of the cold air towards the U.S. east coast?) Perhaps more important Figures 2 and 3 together show that large undulations with warm air pushing far northward and cold air displaced off the pole can occur in other parts of the world when the index is weak. As pointed out many other times over the years of this blog, what goes on in the U.S. is not good instantaneous editorial content for climate change.

Nice job at deflecting, tramp96. This conversation wasn't about consumerism's effect on climate change. It was about you and those who believe as you do, and your combined penchant for posting lies about the reality of human-induced climate change, then spreading those lies far and wide through repetition in the comments section of Dr. Rood's blog (and who knows where else).

But instead of talking about that subject, you decided to turn it into a witch-hunt for liberal green hypocrites. For the record, there's not one scientist who studies human-induced climate change who doesn't admit that their own consumerism combined with those of everyone else contributes to the problem. But that doesn't negate their work. If anything, it makes them more aware of the world around them, and provides a humility before nature.

Both are attributes you would be wise to attempt to cultivate.

Lies in your eyes but truths in many others including many scientists

Another lie/distortion.

Your phrase "many scientists" is purely subjective.

What number is that? For that fact, what number of those "many scientists" are climate scientists? Earth scientists, even?

You can't answer that question, tramp96. Not truthfully, anyway.

THAT is the difference between your "side" of the argument, and the rest of us who understand the threat that human-induced climate change poses to humanity: WE can produce verifiable numbers, and we have mathematics on our side:

97 to 98% of 1,372 climate researchers support the tenets of anthropogenic climate change as outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Link).

There's no soapbox here, tramp96. Not on this subject. Twist it all you want, but reality is reality. Numbers are numbers, and the results are conclusive on convergent lines of research. Average global temperatures are rising, they're rising at a rate magnitudes faster than in the geologic past, and the current rise in temps are caused by an excess of CO2 continuously being pumped into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels by human beings.

That's the bare bones, no-holds-barred, God-honest truth. Run from it if you must, lie about if it means so much to you, but in the end, it's ALL of us who will pay the price.

Quoting 559. tramp96:Oh so we should have gone right from the stone wheel to fusion.The more I talk to some of you liberals the more I realize how simple your thinking really is.

It's easy to slap a label on someone we view as "other". After all, it's part of what made us all modern humans. Exclusion of unknown or unfamilier individuals is as old as human culture. Exclusion of those we see as different helps lead to tribal wars and genocide, and is theorized by some to have lead to rapid evolution of the human brain and to huge leaps in technology, just what happened in the last century.

Maybe we can hope that exclusion will save us from climate change. What will happen to humankind before the next great technological leap may not be what we would hope.

Quoting 536. tramp96:Here is something else your not going to like,if GW is a fact the only way to get out of it is through the free market and not socialism.

When you say free markets is it that markets should be free to do anything they see as profitable? Such as how the free markets are lining up to exploit the Canadian Tar Sand Oils and a coming ice free Arctic Ocean? The freedom to ignore the health of all by being free to be able to pollute our air, land and water? Face the facts here. Conservatives will rightfully say that our corporations are moving production to other countries to escape the environmental laws of the U.S.. So what conservatives are actually saying is that they favor to be free to pollute as much as possible. I am a fiscal conservative, but I have no associations with those that claim to carry the conservative banner now. They have absolutely no idea of what a true conservative is. Conservatives today are of the belief that governments must be reduced to the point that they will become incapable of doing anything to serve the people they will govern. Unwittingly or wittingly, they wish for corporate rule over us all.

When you say socialism is in the context of everyone pitching in to face problems that will adversely affect us all? Trust me, your ideology is not a savior to anyone other than those that are most responsible for creating the problems, and all in the name of profits. What we have now is corporations dictating to us what our fate will become. They are trying to dictate every aspect of our life. ... How do you feel about corporations tracking the moves of children when these children use the Internet and social media outlets? Personally, I feel it is perverted. Seriously, do you really need that new iPhone, as an example? What about the planned obsolescence that is designed into nearly every new product?

Quoting 567. tramp96:Nobody has the answer to those questions but destroying the way of life now is not the answer.

The point is tramp, if the human race continues on its current course of unsustainable living, the effects of that course will eventually undue everything we possess today...with tragic consequences as a result. We merely suggest a change in lifestyle...which will be painful, but worth it in the long run. Is that too much to ask for?

Quoting 531. tramp96:Thanks for the lecture. What do you realistically think can be done about GW if in fact it does exist? Time after time I come to this blog and all I see is people putting themselves on a liberal pedestal screaming GW GW but they are like the rest of us living with all of the modern conveniences. Tell me were would you be without your fridge or your local grocery store,hospital,pharmacy ect.? How many lives would be lost without our current infrastructure and how many have been saved because of it? So the next time you want to get on your soap box ask yourself these questions.There is nothing wrong with fighting the good fight but don't put yourself above anybody else when you turn the ignition on the same as I do.

Nice job at deflecting, tramp96. This conversation wasn't about consumerism's effect on climate change. It was about you and those who believe as you do, and your combined penchant for posting lies about the reality of human-induced climate change, then spreading those lies far and wide through repetition in the comments section of Dr. Rood's blog (and who knows where else).

But instead of talking about that subject, you decided to turn it into a witch-hunt for liberal green hypocrites. For the record, there's not one scientist who studies human-induced climate change who doesn't admit that their own consumerism combined with those of everyone else contributes to the problem. But that doesn't negate their work. If anything, it makes them more aware of the world around them, and provides a humility before nature.

Quoting 531. tramp96:Thanks for the lecture. What do you realistically think can be done about GW if in fact it does exist? Time after time I come to this blog and all I see is people putting themselves on a liberal pedestal screaming GW GW but they are like the rest of us living with all of the modern conveniences. Tell me were would you be without your fridge or your local grocery store,hospital,pharmacy ect.? How many lives would be lost without our current infrastructure and how many have been saved because of it? So the next time you want to get on your soap box ask yourself these questions.There is nothing wrong with fighting the good fight but don't put yourself above anybody else when you turn the ignition on the same as I do.

Nice, but you do not use any logic at all when use these examples. What do you think will happen to all of these modern conveniences once fossil fuels have become too cost prohibitive to use and still grow our economy? How far away are we from that becoming the reality now? What happens to all these treasures when we have not yet established alternative energy sources long before this happens? Will these modern conveniences still be available to us as we witness crop failures of the magnitude we have not endured before? (Think, Arab Uprising) What are specie loss that we depend on for so many medicines now? How much of our GDP will be spent in attempts to relocate sea ports and refugees from rising sea levels? How long before ocean acidification becomes more problematic for us than the over fishing is now? How long before societies begin to collapse? Where will your modern conveniences be then? No one will be immune to this. The super rich can insulate themselves from this for a short period of time, but not for long.

You beat me to it, but I'll post this quote from Hayek anyhow:(Hayek, Road to Serfdom 1944)

Hey! I'm currently reading that book. Quite dense for someone my age, I'm halfway through, and I've been going on and off as my time permits for nearly a year.

Quoting 545. goosegirl1:

By the way, you fell victim to a logical fallacy, tu quoque. I just needed to say that :)

Latin is fun, as my first Latin textbook back in freshman year would say. It was fun after you got rid of the bad half of the class. Unfortunately, my school wouldn't allow me to take AP Latin this year, due to "scheduling conflicts". Apparently, 7th grade math is more important than AP Latin. I beg to differ. Oh well.

Sorry for the off-topic blog post everyone, I got a little bit on the overly excessive excited side there.

FRONTLINE explores the massive shift in public opinion on climate change

John Hockenberry | WGBH Boston | October 23, 2012

Four years ago, climate change was a hot issue and politicians from both sides seemed poised to act. Today public opinion on the climate issue has cooled considerably. Politicians either ignore it or proclaim their skepticism. What's behind this massive reversal? FRONTLINE goes inside the organizations that fought the scientific establishment to shift the direction of the climate debate.

Quoting 517. tramp96:Before we do that do you concede that you may be wrong?

Oh, I am wrong on many things. That is why I do not gamble. That son of a gun did have an ace in the hole, even though the other three aces were showing around the table. :)

I look at the science. What does the science say? What are the observations? What scientific theory best explains the observations? What do The Laws of Physics, Chemistry and Thermodynamics tell us concerning the addition of greenhouse gases to our atmosphere? Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Does the burning of fossil fuels result in the release of CO2 into the atmosphere? Our adding CO2 into the atmosphere is the most damaging thing that we are doing to our climate, but there are other anthropogenic contributions to this as well. Reclaiming (really? reclaiming?) wetlands. Poor agriculture practices. Concreting every inch of the surface of the planet as fast as we can. The list of anthropogenic causes is long. Yes, there are times that I am wrong, but as to if anthropogenic climate change is happening or not is pretty much a no brainer.

Besides, it is capitalism and its inability to deal with externalities that got us into this mess.

You beat me to it, but I'll post this quote from Hayek anyhow:

“Nor can certain harmful effects of deforestation, or of some methods of farming, or of the smoke and noise of factories, be confined to the owner of the property in question or to those who are willing to submit to the damage for an agreed compensation. In such instances we must find some substitute for the regulation by the price mechanism. But the fact that we have to resort to the substitution of direct regulation by authority where the conditions for the proper working of competition cannot be created, does not prove that we should suppress competition where it can be made to function.” (Hayek, Road to Serfdom 1944)

Quoting 531. tramp96:Thanks for the lecture. What do you realistically think can be done about GW if in fact it does exist? Time after time I come to this blog and all I see is people putting themselves on a liberal pedestal screaming GW GW but they are like the rest of us living with all of the modern conveniences. Tell me were would you be without your fridge or your local grocery store,hospital,pharmacy ect.? How many lives would be lost without our current infrastructure and how many have been saved because of it? So the next time you want to get on your soap box ask yourself these questions.There is nothing wrong with fighting the good fight but don't put yourself above anybody else when you turn the ignition on the same as I do.

It would appear there is more than sermon happening tonight.

You are correct, in that there are billions alive today that would not be, in the absence of fossil fuel energy. We just cannot afford to feed, heat, treat, store or transport enough to keep 7 plus billion people alive unless we use fossilized sunshine to do the work.

While it is true that there will always be some oil left somewhere, sooner or later the obtainable, viable and cheap resources will be gone. That infrastructure you mention? Poof. The carrying capacity will drastically change, and not in favor of humans.

So how many lives lost then? The climate destroyed, agriculture in ruins, medical supplies dwindling and no way to transport anything?

By the way, you fell victim to a logical fallacy, tu quoque. I just needed to say that :)

Quoting 536. tramp96:Here is something else your not going to like,if GW is a fact the only way to get out of it is through the free market and not socialism.

How do you know what my position on free market v socialism is? At least I admitted I was speculating about your thinking - why do you assume you know about mine?

In any event, please explain how the free market could rescue the world from the consequences of AGW. I'm sincerely interested in what you think because, believe it or not, I would very much prefer that suffering, misery, and death be avoided for as any people as possible.

Quoting 531. tramp96:Thanks for the lecture. What do you realistically think can be done about GW if in fact it does exist? Time after time I come to this blog and all I see is people putting themselves on a liberal pedestal screaming GW GW but they are like the rest of us living with all of the modern conveniences. Tell me were would you be without your fridge or your local grocery store,hospital,pharmacy ect.? How many lives would be lost without our current infrastructure and how many have been saved because of it? So the next time you want to get on your soap box ask yourself these questions.There is nothing wrong with fighting the good fight but don't put yourself above anybody else when you turn the ignition on the same as I do.

Time will come when all transportation will be powered by wind, hydro, solar, wave, geothermal,Gulfstream kinetic energy and OTEC.....

531 - sounds good but totally unresponsive. It may however disclose the basis of your objections, Tramp, which seem to be (and I'm just speculating here) that if AGW is real, there is nothing we can do about it without giving up our current way of life, which can't be done without immense hardship and suffering.

Guess what? You're finally right about something!

But on the other hand, if we do nothing, there's going to be immense hardship and suffering anyway. So basically (IMO) we are screwed anyway.

An international group of scientists concerned with understanding how Earth functions as a system has created a beautiful and terrifying visual summary of data collected by the United Nations’ climate panel to project how conditions on the surface of the planet will change in the next 100 years.

While watching the video below, viewers should bear in mind that forecasts given by the U.N. body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are conservative due to the organization’s structure of consensus among a broad range of participating scientists. This practice means that there is a strong possibility that changes in temperature, sea level and other factors may be much greater than the group anticipates